Well you hemmed it in by saying standard competitive event. So anything outside that would not be standard, correct?

Interestingly, we never played that way in tournaments for years. Most of the time it didn't matter, as it was rare that people would reach the build total and not also have the game virtually decided as well.

I remember the first time it happened where a game "finished" before time and the outcome was not clear. Neither player liked it. Most everyone agreed it was a dumb rule, but followed the ruling. This was years into the game. It's not like I played in some backwater place. I played in one of the biggest hubs of Star Wars Miniatures in the world.

Clearly we were not alone. As stated earlier in the thread - Canada still plays this way.

Then gambit went to 10 pts and the incentive grew. (Even as a percentage of the build total, it grew. 5pts in 150 does not = 10pts in 200. Simple math.)

Even then it wasn't too bad at first, but then builds started to change. Players intentionally build squads just to game gambit as fast as possible. The meta shrank. Less squads were viable and the game became less fun. It started to feel like most games that ended before time with the losing player with half a squad still on the board.

I have heard this comment over and over. Too many times for me to ignore.



If you want to get technical - that is not true. Time limits were implemented later.

But that aside - The look art the title of the thread. The concern is games ending before time. Games going to time is a whole different issue. Worthy of discussion and it's own thread. It does have its own penalty or disincentive, but again - separate topic.



To be clear - Randy, I do not think you are one. I will refuse to answer that question about anyone else.

As to the rest - this thread alone should make it clear that many players feel it is a concern. It's possible to have more than one concern. This thread is about one that has not been addressed in any way. What you brought up has been talked about, action has been taken. It has gotten better. Has it been solved? Not completely. Have a theory on how to help it? Great - start that thread. This is not that thread.



I fully agree that those are strategy theory. I brought those examples up to show that gambit does not mean engagement. That is all.

"Abuse" is subjective. I sincerely am not calling anyone a cheater or a bad person for employing any legal strategy.

But as has happened many times in our game - it evolves. We as a community have made many changes to the game in the attempt to make it better for the most players. Some more successful than others.

I am completely baffled by how my suggestion would make the game worse, or encourage stalling or slow play.

Stalling is illegal, but obviously subjective and hard to police. That said - I honestly don't think we have ANY active players anymore that engage in intentional stalling to win. I don't know why that would suddenly change. I DO think that players actively and intentionally build squads that have the main focus of speed gambit stocking. I don't think that makes for fun games. Many others don't either. It's not illegal - heck, I'll even give it up - it's blasted smart considering how the rules as are basically encourage it.

But many players are fed up with it. Myself included. I want engagement of pieces. I want games decided by which team is left standing. I honestly think that gambit (and specifically the fact that it ends games before time and before one team is eliminated), ironically, has lead to LESS engagement.

When I play casually (which admittedly is much less frequently these days), I never finish a game before it's done. Even if it means me losing. I don't want to win that way. That's not the game to me. And clearly, I am not alone.

Apology accepted Captain Needa.

This is interesting. I would love to hear from these people. I think this is a good conversation, and I’d like to hear everyone’s voice.

So far, I don’t see anyone who is extremely against a change to gambit scoring. Perhaps there are angles that we’re not seeing?

I obviously don’t know who these people are, Tim, but perhaps you might contact them and invite them to share their thoughts here? It’s very difficult to take seriously the opinions of unnamed people if those people won’t share their opinions and engage in conversation. I’d like to hear them out and listen to their perspective. Especially if there’s a lot of them, because the results of this conversation are likely to impact the whole SWM community (at least with regard to competitive play).

Other thoughts -

Have a couple outlines on when the game should continue.

It's clear both "sides" have fears of extreme examples that set them off.

So why not address those extremes?

Extreme 1-
One squad has reached 200 (including gambit) in 30 minutes, while the other squad is still in their back row. Why should I have to go hunt down them when they are not engaging.

Fair point - that is annoying. How about - if the player who is behind has not reached 100pts, the game ends at 200. This forces engagement to happen, and if it's not - game ends.


Extreme 2-
Squad A and Squad B race to gambit and have the same amount. Both squads are engaged, but Squad A has a 100pt rock piece. Squad B kills all other pieces on Squad A's team except that 100pt piece which is down to 10hp. Squad A kills 120 pts of characters on Squad Bs team, but Squad B still has 80 pts of legit combatants at full health. 8 rounds of gambit has been reached, and the game ends 180-200 with 20 minutes left on the clock.

Fair point, that is annoying. How about if the player who is ahead has not made at least 150 pts in kills, the game continues on until time or 150pts in kills is reached?



If we implement both of these - it's a "happy medium" that eliminates the extremes on both ends.


To boil it down - game ends at 200 only if the player reaching 200 has at least 150 points in kills or the opponent has not reached 100.

So only in a case where the player reaching 200 has LESS than 150 points in kills AND the player with less than 200 has at least 100 pts (kills and gambit) will the game continue.


In other words - only when the outcome is really not decided.




This is all not mutually exclusive with other suggestions (Randy's, tint's, etc) of modifying how gambit is awarded. In fact I think they work best together.



The goal of this - on both sides - is more engagement

Seems too complicated. And the combination of C and D means that the new restriction would almost never come into play. Not worth the complication.

This is what it is currently, btw. The above would add 1 condition, and specify another.

I'm with TJ, its too complicated. I don't really want to add an "If X go to Y" check at the end of rounds to see if I won. That doesn't really feel like a better choice for the game IMO

That's good to hear. Thanks for commenting!

It would be helpful to also hear where you're coming from, what your thoughts are. if you have objections that you're not sharing, then we cannot address them. Rather than holding your objections close to your vest (probably in the interest of objectivity), I think it would be far more helpful if you shared those objections so that we can all wrestle through them together.

For instance, if (as Tim has said) some people in the wider community are adamantly opposed to changing how gambit works, then I'd be really interested to hear why that is. There's probably something that some of us are missing, which would render our ideas moot. However, up to this point nobody has really articulated anything to that effect, and so the rest of us can only assume that an adjustment to gambit might be a solution.

As Tim has said, the more voices we can involve in this discussion, the better. I'm fully in agreement with him on that.

I would say a better way of stating the first point is:
Tournaments will not end up shorter than expected as often as it does now.
You already have to allot for the whole hour each round. So they will not go longer.

In theory it is probably correct that there will be more 1pt losses

Is either of those a problem?

I've never really understood the concept of wanting to play less minis.

Battle Ready still gives you the advantage of being able to set up the kill box and forcing the opponent to come to you.